Author: Andrew Williams
Date: 07:54:02 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 10:00:01, Joel wrote: >Thanks Andrew. > >That explains a _lot_. > >I was contemplating replacing my quiescent search with some kind of function >(which I thought before was a SEE) which took potential captures into >consideration, and returned an estimated material score which I could then >hopefully use for some extra pruning (something like if score + MARGIN then ><blah>). > >I wonder if anyone would be so confident with their SEE evaluations (amongst >other things, since as you mentioned the SEE is not all powerful) that they >could simply ditch the quiescent search altogether? > >Regards, > >Joel I think I've read of such things, but I don't see how you could trust it. There's always the possibility that you're certain that the exchange on (say) e4 is favourable, but your opponent might decide not to exchange there, but to start exchanging on (say) b7. I guess you could check each square individually, from both sides' point of view, but I would think it would be more effort to write and test that than a qsearch. Andrew
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.